Author: Raghav Agarwal, a 2nd year learner at Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA
ABSTRACT
The criminalization of politics in India has become a pressing issue, threatening the foundational principles of democracy and governance. This phenomenon is characterized by the increasing participation of individuals with criminal backgrounds in political processes, significantly eroding public trust and integrity within the electoral system. The nexus between politicians and criminal elements has deepened over the years, often driven by socio-economic factors. This has resulted in a political landscape where candidates with pending criminal charges are frequently preferred over those with clean records. This article examines the historical evolution of this trend, highlighting vital legal frameworks that have enabled and attempted to mitigate the criminalization of politics. The data from the Association for Democratic Reforms (A.D.R.) reveals alarming statistics: a substantial percentage of elected representatives possess criminal records, with serious charges such as murder and corruption increasingly common among candidates. This raises critical questions regarding the implications for democratic governance, including the erosion of voter choice, increased corruption, and the potential for electoral malpractices. The legal framework governing disqualifications under the Representation of People Act, 1951, which currently allows individuals with pending charges to contest elections, is scrutinized for its inadequacies.
Furthermore, various reform initiatives and judicial interventions are discussed, including recommendations from the Vohra Committee and subsequent reports from the Law Commission to enhance transparency and accountability in electoral processes. Despite these efforts, the lack of political will and consensus among parties has hindered meaningful reform. Addressing the criminalization of politics in India necessitates a multifaceted approach involving legal reforms, enhanced voter awareness, and a commitment from political parties to prioritize integrity over expediency. Only through concerted efforts can India hope to restore public faith in its democratic institutions and ensure that elected representatives genuinely reflect the people’s will.
TO THE POINT
Historical Context
The criminalization of Indian politics does not date from a few days ago; its seeds date back to the early 1990s, more precisely after the Bombay bomb blasts in 1993. The investigations found deep interlinking of politicians with organized crime, a landmark finding that shows criminal elements had infiltrated political structures. Since then, reports and studies, one after another, recorded a disturbing trend: an increasing number of elected representatives have criminal records.
Trend Present Era
Statistics compiled by the Association for Democratic Reforms (A.D.R.)-the latest available the skyrocketing trend of election contestants with declared criminal charges against them:
Around 30% of winners in the 2009 Lok Sabha elections had declared some criminal charges against themselves, and 15% were charged with serious offenses. In the 2014 Lok Sabha elections, out of the 542 winning candidates, nearly 34% stated that they had an encounter with criminal charges, and nearly 21% were charged with grave crimes like murder, crimes against women, and kidnapping. A candidate with a criminal record had about a 13% chance of winning, whereas a clean candidate only had a 5% chance of winning. Today, out of the 2019 members in Lok Sabha, 43% are charged with criminal offenses, which could be as heinous as rape and murder.
Criminal candidates increased with the election of state assemblies to five states during the elections in February-March 2022. Out of 403 candidates in the sole Uttar Pradesh, 140 MLAs have cases against them. Data available for the first phase of UP elections through A.D.R. reports that around 156 candidates out of 615 contesting had declared criminal charges against themselves. Similar trends persisted in all subsequent phases where substantial numbers declared criminal backgrounds. Such a trend, increasing day by day, is casting critical challenges before democracy in India and, therefore, calls for concrete steps from the Election Commission to prevent criminals from contesting elections.
Factors Leading to Criminalization
Several reasons enable criminals to enter politics and also occupy political posts. These include:
– Lack of Good Governance: The ability of citizens to find power wielders who can either protect them or provide for them will take precedence in such a scenario. The crux of the situation is that whenever the police do not solve their grievances appropriately, people will go for influential or resourceful candidates.
- Winnability Factor: Firms would favor winning candidates in the second round, especially those who can win by muscle power or pressure, and their criminal background would take a second seat. Candidates thought to have muscle power would be chosen as such candidates are likely to influence an opinion and win elections.
- Financial Muscle: Most of those with a criminal record have enough financial muscle to sponsor election campaigns and, therefore, get the party’s nod. The parties mostly operate on such financial resources.
- Justice Deferred: Since the prosecution process is protracted, it allows candidates facing pending charges to stand for elections and serve without readily being confronted. This protracts into a situation where politicians abuse the power accorded them to influence the outcome of their trials.
Implications to Democracy
The involvement of hooligans in political offices has the following implications for democratic tenets:
- Erosion of the right to choose representatives with a criminal record encircles the ability of voters to choose their representatives based on merit and integrity.
- Opportunistic use of politics elected criminals will most probably focus on personal aggrandizement rather than the public interest and create further opportunities for corruption within the governance structures.
- Intimidation and Electoral Malpractices: Criminal politicians may indulge in voter intimidation, booth capturing, and other malpractices that vitiate the purity of free and fair elections.
Legal Framework
The Constitution of India does not directly disqualify persons accused of committing crimes while on trial from contesting elections. The Representation of People Act of 1951 makes disqualifications solely on convictions for certain offenses. There is:
Section 8 bars convicts from standing for elections for six years after serving a sentence of more than two years. Those charged with criminal offenses are not barred from standing for elections; they can only be barred from standing once convicted.
Section 4A, the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, resulted from the recommendations made by the Law Commission’s 170th report on electoral reforms in 1999. It requires candidates to submit an affidavit detailing all of their assets as well as criminal charges pending against them. Additionally, the Law Commission’s 179th report recommended an amendment so that a person accused of ghastly offenses was disqualified until acquitted; however, because of no consensus among different political parties, the recommendations have remained mainly on paper.
Reform Initiatives
Different committees and judicial pronouncements have tried to solve this problem:
While the Vohra Committee (1993) highlighted the nexus between politicians and criminals, it remained scandalous and implementable. It has exposed considerable links between criminals and politicians, who have been branded as running parallel governments assisted by influential personalities.
The Election Commission later developed a committee on electoral reforms, which submitted proposals to increase transparency in elections in 2004. They included changes to penalize candidates who furnish false information related to their declarations while filing nominations.
Judicial interventions have also dealt with this issue. In Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002), the Supreme Court laid down that voters are entitled to know the antecedents of a candidate to enable them to make a knowledgeable electoral decision.
Potential Solutions
There are quite a few solutions that can be suggested to combat the criminalization of politics:
– Rigorify Criminal Provisions: Candidates should be debarred till acquitted: The Representation of People Act needs to be amended, which debars candidates when serious charges have been framed against them till they are acquitted.
Electoral Reforms can provide a solution for bringing down money and muscle power in elections, like strengthening norms of disclosure by candidates and funding elections.
Public Awareness Campaigns to inform the citizens of their role and the selection of free, honest, and incorruptible representatives rather than influential ones. This can facilitate a more conscious electorate.
Role of Parties in Politicization
The parties mainly assist in the consolidation or campaign against criminalization. The party decision-making over candidates’ choices and nominations usually pits electoral interests over such moral issues. Thus,
This leads to Normalization of Criminality: Parties are prone to nominating candidates with a history of criminal activity, where their connections to the world of crime become the new normal rather than the exception.
Lack of Internal Democracy: In the political parties, the selection process for candidates rarely includes democratic mechanisms. The decisions are usually made by a clique of those who thrive on loyalty above all else.
Vote Gains In certain instances, electorates wish for connected representatives who deliver near-term benefits or protection. Parties are then induced to nominate such people.
Impact on Governance
The presence of criminals in the legislatures reduces governance quality:
– Policy Making Compromised: Legislators with a background in crime may place their interest over the public’s good in formulating policies or laws. As a result, policy or law may favor specific industries or groups rather than the general population’s needs.
– More Corruption: Political offenders are likelier to engage in corruption because it affects their interests. It lowers their morality and destroys the people’s confidence in the institutions meant to uphold justice and justice.
Pacification of Democratic Norms: This inclusion of crime in politics uproots democratic culture since there is this acceptance of destructive natures being encouraged or compensated. Some honest individuals will get discouraged from venturing or staying in politics.
International Perspectives
The problem is not peculiar to India; many democracies also share a similar problem of the relationship between crime and politics. However, many countries have taken various measures to deal with them:
Countries like Italy have very restrictive laws that prevent individuals convicted of significant crimes from ascending to public offices; such laws have prevented mafia organizations from going unchecked in politics. In America, campaign contrite button regulations have been implemented for individuals with felony convictions that lessen the money influence on corrupt sources.
Examples from other countries show that despite the significant challenge, this is not impossible with robust legal frameworks and practical, proactive approaches toward increasing transparency in political life and accountability in governance institutions.
Judicial Activism
Judicial activism has indeed played a significant role in correcting misconceptions regarding the criminalization of politics in India. In this regard, some of the significant landmark judgments have emphasized:
The Supreme Court has interpreted citizens’ rights to information about candidates’ backgrounds as essential to making an informed electoral choice under Article 19(1)(a) relating to freedom of speech and expression.
CONCLUSION
The criminalization of politics in India substantially threatens the democratic ethos enshrined in its Constitution. The infiltration of individuals with criminal backgrounds into legislative bodies undermines not only the integrity of elected representatives but also the very foundation of democratic governance. As evidenced by alarming statistics from recent elections, many candidates have declared criminal charges against themselves, raising concerns about their capacity to serve the public interest effectively. The implications of this trend are manifold. Firstly, it restricts voters’ choices by presenting them with candidates whose primary motivations may not align with public welfare but rather personal gain through illicit means. This erosion of choice is antithetical to the principles of free and fair elections essential for a healthy democracy. Secondly, elected officials with criminal backgrounds may prioritize their interests over those of their constituents, leading to policies that favor specific industries or groups at the expense of broader societal needs.
Moreover, once in power, these individuals can leverage their positions to shield themselves from accountability, perpetuating a cycle of corruption and abuse of power. The ramifications extend beyond individual cases; they contribute to a broader culture where unethical behavior becomes normalized within political discourse. Legal frameworks currently in place need to address this issue adequately. The Representation of People Act permits individuals with pending charges to contest elections unless convicted, allowing many candidates to exploit legal loopholes while undermining public trust in electoral processes. Although various reform initiatives have been proposed—such as those stemming from the Vohra Committee’s recommendations—political consensus remains elusive. To combat this pervasive problem effectively, comprehensive reforms are essential. Strengthening legal provisions to disqualify candidates facing serious charges until acquitted is paramount. Additionally, enhancing transparency through mandatory disclosures regarding candidates’ backgrounds can empower voters to make informed choices. Public awareness campaigns to educate citizens about their rights and the importance of integrity in governance will further bolster democratic resilience. In summation, addressing the criminalization of politics in India requires a concerted effort from all stakeholders—political parties, civil society organizations, judicial bodies, and voters—to foster an environment where ethical conduct prevails over influence. Only through such collective action can India aspire to reclaim its democratic ideals and ensure that elected representatives embody the values and aspirations of its citizenry.
FAQ
- What is the criminalization of politics?
The criminalization of politics in India has found an increase in the implantation of criminals inside politics against democratic principles and public trust. Sometimes, candidates with pending criminal charges are preferred against others with a clean record.
- What historical events contributed to this trend?
The issue started to come into the public eye in the early 1990s, especially after the 1993 Bombay bomb blasts that showed how much of an established relationship existed between politicians and organized crime. Since then, studies have shown an increase in the number of elected representatives with criminal records.
- What is the current count of criminalized politicians?
According to the latest available data, nearly 43% of Lok Sabha members have declared criminal offenses, murder, corruption, and several such serious charges are on the rise. For states like Uttar Pradesh, many candidates reported having criminal cases filed against them.
- What are the legal frameworks for candidate disqualification?
Under the Representation of People Act, 1951, persons facing pending charges are not disqualified from an election without conviction. This means that many candidates exploit loopholes in the law to their advantage, causing electoral integrity to be a serious concern.
Impact on Democracy
The presence of criminals in politics undermines the vote choice and tends to cause more corruption. The elected members with criminal backgrounds take precedence in their gains over public interest, which causes electoral malpractices such as intimidation and vote manipulation.
- What are the suggested reforms?
All Vohra Committee committees have made suggestions, most of which have been about stricter disqualification criteria and more transparency in candidates’ declarations. There is no political consensus on this.
- How to overcome this issue?
The comprehensive reforms should involve reviewing the legal provisions to exclude candidates barred from contesting elections due to serious charges pending until acquitted. A public awareness campaign is also needed to enlighten the people about their electoral rights and moral integrity in governance.
